Promethean Messengers 
COMPETITION

Darby Yang

Beyond Boundaries and Beyond the Ballot: Voting is Not Enough

By Darby Yang

​

Introduction 

​

“Enough” implies that something is sufficient; in this case, that the act of voting within itself is sufficient to accomplish a goal. I define such an objective by the three main goals that voters should seek to satisfy in casting their ballot: being a responsible citizen, upholding democracy, and ensuring the fair representation of all people. In this essay, I will argue that voting in isolation does not fulfill these goals; rather, this right must be exercised in tandem with other checks and balances on power, such as the rights to organize, protest, and advocate for structural reforms. 

Part I: Being a Responsible Citizen 

In the months leading up to any election, but particularly the general election, American citizens are bombarded by messages like “Your vote matters!” and “It’s your responsibility!” while the iconic “I voted!” sticker becomes the holy grail of civic participation. However, casting a vote does not automatically ensure its intended effects: elected officials need to be held accountable by those who helped them secure their office in the first place. The ballot is important, but it is merely a piece of paper and does not hold meaning without the reverence for democratic institutions, as well as the leaders who ostensibly value their constituents. As a West Virginian fast food worker observed in an NPR interview: “What good does it do, though, when they'll promise you anything and then it's a lie” (Khalid et al.)? 

Voting may be periodic, but issues are constant. Successful mass movements around the globe have demonstrated that the power of the people is not limited to just one day every few years. They can and should hold their leaders accountable by engaging in other ways, like contacting their representatives via email, signing petitions, and supporting advocacy groups. Also, while casting a ballot may be considered the paramount way to participate in politics, as such acts help determine our government leaders, whether someone votes cannot be equated with whether they are a responsible or “good” citizen. As Russel Dalton notes in The Good Citizen, “the norms of citizenship” have shifted. The traditional definition of good citizenship (“duty-based citizenship”)–which centers on formal obligations and responsibilities such as voting–is waning, while “engaged citizenship,” which emphasizes assertive participation and the “social concerns and the welfare of others,” is growing, particularly among the youth (Dalton 4-7). A UCLA survey of 141,189 first-year college students confirmed Dalton’s conclusion: interest in protests, civic activism, and helping others reached an all-time high over the 50-year span of the survey, even as youth turnout rates remain low (Eagan et al. 8; Symonds). The increase in engaged citizenship may be attributed to rapid globalization, advancements in technology, and higher average incomes, as people now have more means to make a difference (Dalton). During the Vietnam War, emerging technologies like television helped spread protest anthems (Italie and Sherman). 

Ultimately, while voting is important, civic responsibility can be demonstrated beyond the voting booth through new, increasingly popular means of “engaged citizenship.” 

​

Part II: Protecting Liberal Democracy 

Voting is also not sufficient to protect the characteristics of a liberal democracy. While democracy simply describes a government of the people, a liberal democracy also emphasizes values such as the separation of powers and the protection of fundamental liberties (Zakaria 17). This distinction is critical because, as Samuel P. Huntington writes in The Third Wave, elections are “the inescapable sine qua non” of democracy, but elected governments can be inefficient, irresponsible, and corrupt (9-10). These qualities make such governments undesirable, but “they do not make them undemocratic” (Huntington 9-10). 

​

American diplomat Richard Holbrooke summarized the problem: “Suppose the election was declared free and fair,” and those elected are “racists, fascists, separatists…That is the dilemma” (Zakaria 17). The election of numerous illiberal leaders in modern history realizes this concern, including Viktor Orbán in Hungary to Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines (Kirişci and Sloat). In fact, Duterte, “The Punisher,” ran on illiberalism, saying he would massacre drug-using criminals and dissolve Congress if they opposed him (BBC); he proceeded to win twice as many votes as his rivals and remained popular during his term (BBC; You). These cases demonstrate that elections do not guarantee a fair government, and being elected can actually empower illiberal leaders to dismantle safeguards and upend democratic norms. Thus, voting may be an important tool, but one that must be used wisely, supplemented with other actions to uphold a liberal democracy. 

​

Maintaining a robust liberal democracy requires not only that people vote, but also an educated voter base that understands their rights and how to safeguard them. To ensure this voter base, we must turn to schools, which were originally intended for this very purpose. The “Father of Education,” Horace Mann, led the Common School Movement so schools could educate the people and strengthen democracy, not, as many of us high schoolers believe, so that we can learn 

about derivatives and passé composé (Mann). He once wrote to the Massachusetts School Board, “however well informed in matters of general science or history, yet [the constituency] must, if citizens of a Republic, understand something of the true nature and functions of the government under which they live” (Mann 14). Mann even called the lack of civic education a “political solecism” (Mann 14). Yet, two centuries later, only nine states and the District of Columbia require a full year of a civics or US government course (Shapiro and Brown). The result: a populace where one in three Americans cannot name all three branches of the government, and young people are avoiding voting due to embarrassment over their lack of knowledge about the ballot and where to cast it (US Chamber of Commerce Foundation; Symonds). These facts lay bare the state of voters’ informedness across the country. How can a populace change a system if they do not know how it works? 

​

As an integral part of almost everyone’s early lives, school can serve as a means to educate the citizenry about civics and the role of government. Through implementing mandatory civics education, students can learn more about how the government functions and become informed voters, because as Mann notes, “it may be an easy thing to make a Republic; but it is a very laborious thing to make Republicans; and woe to the republic that rests upon no better foundations than ignorance, selfishness, and passion” (Mann 14). 

​

However, the goal of these structural reforms is not necessarily to make people run to the polls as soon as they turn 18, because voting is not the only aspect of good citizenship. The importance of structural reform would instead manifest in an engaged populace, equipped with media literacy and critical thinking skills, as well as an understanding of their government and a willingness to help uphold the democracy in which they live–a goal that may involve voting or not. 

Part III: Representing everyone’s voice 

​

Lastly, voting alone is not sufficient to guarantee that the outcome reflects the collective will; often, other factors are at play, such as the idiosyncrasies of the US system and the lack of representation for minorities, both of which can obscure the will of a significant portion of the population. 

​

Particularly in the U.S., the Electoral College system makes some votes (i.e., those in swing states) drastically more important than others. In fact, usually only a small portion of the total votes cast will decide the election (Swasey and Jin). In 2020, just 44,000 votes separated Joe Biden and Trump from an electoral tie, and in 2000, George W. Bush won the deciding state of Florida by 537 votes (Swasey and Jin; National Constitution Center Staff). These statistics about narrow margins seem to prove that even one vote matters, but its significance ultimately depends on a factor largely beyond the voter’s control: their state. To remedy this issue, one reform could be the County-Elector plan (O’Reilly). The Electoral College system stays, but electoral votes are allocated by county, not state, so candidates would compete in hundreds of counties nationwide, not just a few swing states (O’Reilly). This proposed system would eliminate state boundaries’ arbitrariness, compel candidates to spread out campaigning, and ensure that individual votes actually count. 

​

US voting ID laws also disproportionately burden minority groups, as they are more likely to lack an acceptable form of ID and less able to obtain one to vote due to difficulty paying potential fees, inability to take work leave, or difficulty traveling to ID offices (Brennan Center for Justice). Some states also specifically discriminate against certain IDs, like Texas, where handgun licenses–held primarily by white residents–are acceptable, but student ID cards are not, inconveniencing this Democrat-leaning demographic (Texas Department of Public Safety; ACLU). Even though “voter fraud is infinitessimally rare,” increased concern has resulted from fearmongering by politicians, particularly Republicans, some of whom view it as a tactic to “kick the Democrats in the butt” (Lopez; Wines). This unfair burden can only be lifted by supporting legislation that enhances voter accessibility. 

​

Another unique aspect of the US is its two-party system, which contributes to inaccurate representative governance. A Gallup Poll found that 62% of US adults agreed “the two major political parties are doing such a poor job that a third party is needed” (Jones). However, only a minority expressed that they would currently vote for a third-party candidate because they fear their vote will be wasted on a candidate with low odds (Jones). As a result, anyone who does not resonate with either of the two main candidates in a given year might feel that their voice will be drowned out. The United States voting system is even further compromised by partisan gerrymandering. By manipulating the boundaries of electoral districts, political parties can ensure a disproportionate number of safe seats. This legal tactic purposefully makes the outcomes of elections predictable and limits the public’s ability to use their vote to express their voice, effectively silencing it because of partisan politics. 

Representation is also distorted because elections inherently reflect only the will of the majority, not that of the minority. Slavery, for example, was perpetuated for decades because the majority of southern voters fervently supported it (Zakaria 21). If the US had relied solely on majority rule without military force intervention, the practice of slavery could have continued indefinitely (Zakaria 21). Voting may be associated with liberty, but the two can also contradict each other. Excessive reliance on elections can result in “the tyranny of the majority”–when the ballot box no longer guarantees freedom and just reinforces pre-existing power structures. 

Conclusion 

​

Taking into account the three main goals that voting seeks to accomplish–responsible citizenship, the preservation of liberal democracy, and accurate representation of the people–voting by itself clearly falls short of sufficient. It is indeed crucial for a democracy, but only in one aspect. Citizens can be responsible through other means, such as by keeping their leaders accountable in between elections and participating in “engaged citizenship.” Furthermore, even when free and fair, elections are unable to guarantee the qualities of a liberal democracy and can actually contribute to a democracy’s downfall. Illiberal leaders can rise to power because of undue public support and an uninformed, ignorant majority. Finally, elections fail to provide an accurate representation of the people. In America specifically, the Electoral College, gerrymandering, voter ID laws, and the two-party system prevent elections from representing everyone’s voice. The democratic system of majority rule also ignores the minority and can lead to the “tyranny of the majority.” 

To fulfill the three proposed criteria, people must look beyond the voting booth. There are other options, like advocacy, protest, and grassroots activism, which can serve these purposes. If voting is to become sufficient, our country needs to fundamentally revisit the way we approach civic education by implementing structural reforms in our syllabi and supporting legislation that expands voting accessibility. Casting the ballot is important, but it is far from enough. 

​